Case Law Update: Zayas o/b/o K.K. v. Commissioner - Court Affirms Child SSI Denial

What happened

Stacey Zayas asked a Tampa federal court to overturn the denial of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for her grandchild, K.K., in Zayas o/b/o K.K. v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 8:25-cv-02885-AAS (M.D. Fla., Tampa Division), a Title XVI appeal filed October 22, 2025 under 42 U.S.C. section 405(g). On September 14, 2026, the court issued a 17-page order affirming the Commissioner's decision and directing the clerk to enter judgment and close the case.

K.K. was four on the application date of January 10, 2022, and seven when the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued the denial on November 4, 2024. The application alleged kidney issues, scoliosis, autism, oppositional defiant disorder, and ADHD, and the ALJ found six severe impairments: ADHD, autism disorder, idiopathic scoliosis, renal agenesis, oppositional defiance disorder, and anxiety. The claim was denied anyway, and that gap is the lesson here.

How a child's SSI claim is decided

Children are not evaluated the way adults are: there is no residual functional capacity finding. The ALJ runs a three-step inquiry under 20 C.F.R. section 416.924: substantial gainful activity, severe impairment, and whether the impairments meet, medically equal, or functionally equal a listing. See Shinn ex rel. Shinn v. Commissioner of Social Security, 391 F.3d 1276, 1278-79 (11th Cir. 2004).

Functional equivalence is the step this case turned on (see our Florida Social Security disability guide). The ALJ rates six domains under 20 C.F.R. section 416.926a(b)(1): acquiring and using information; attending and completing tasks; interacting and relating with others; moving about and manipulating objects; caring for yourself; and health and physical well-being. They functionally equal the listings only if they produce "marked limitations in two of the domains" or "an extreme limitation in one domain." Shinn, 391 F.3d at 1279. The ALJ rated K.K. less than marked in all six.

The record behind those ratings

Zayas challenged three domains: attending and completing tasks, interacting and relating with others, and caring for oneself. Two teacher questionnaires did most of the work against her.

His pre-kindergarten teacher completed one in February 2022, his kindergarten teacher another in March 2024. In the attending and completing tasks domain, neither marked a "serious problem" or a "very serious problem" for any of the thirteen listed activities. Each rated eleven of thirteen as "no problem" or a "slight problem," and each flagged two as an "obvious problem," including waiting to take turns. The counts ran the same direction in the other two domains: ten of thirteen activities for interacting and relating with others, seven and eight of ten for caring for oneself.

The rest of the record agreed. A March 2024 psychological exam described K.K.'s "[p]hysical tempo" as "above normal limits with significant hyperactivity and distractibility," with judgment, insight, impulse control, attention, and concentration below the normal range, but intact memory and average intellectual functioning. A June 2024 counseling note said K.K. could take and follow directions and had increased weekly compliance, while still being defiant. Two state agency consultants reviewed the file in January 2023 and two others on reconsideration in April 2024; all four found less than marked limitations in all six domains, and the ALJ found those findings persuasive and consistent with the evidence, citing the supportability and consistency factors of 20 C.F.R. section 416.920c.

The caregiver testimony issue

Zayas also argued the ALJ did not adequately evaluate her testimony. The ALJ had found K.K.'s impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms, but that "the allegations concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record." The court held that finding was supported, citing the teacher questionnaires, the 504 plan, medication and counseling, a September 2022 report from the grandmother that K.K. had made significant progress in emotional regulation, and a December 2023 report from his mother that he was very smart and did well in class despite trouble focusing.

The court was explicit about its limited role: "[e]ven if the court disagrees with the ALJ's resolution of the factual issues, the ALJ's decision must be affirmed where, as here, it is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole." Baker o/b/o Baker v. Sullivan, 880 F.2d 319, 321 (11th Cir. 1989).

What this means if you have a child's SSI claim

This is one district court order applying settled law to one record (more in our Case Law & Industry Insights feed), but it shows how these cases get decided.

The teacher questionnaire is evidence, not paperwork. SSA sends it to the school, a teacher fills it out on a rating scale, and an ALJ can lean on it heavily, yet families do not always see what was submitted. Ask for a copy, and if the ratings do not match what the school does day to day, address it before the hearing closes.

A severe impairment is not a marked limitation. K.K. had six severe impairments, including autism and ADHD, and was still denied. Step two asks whether a condition exists and is more than minimal; functional equivalence asks how much it interferes with specific activities.

Accommodations cut both ways. A 504 plan, medication, and counseling document a real need, and they also generate records of improvement and compliance that an ALJ may read as support for a less than marked rating. Make sure the record captures what still fails with the supports in place.

Federal court is not a second hearing. The question there is not whether the child is disabled but whether substantial evidence supports what the ALJ decided, a standard the Eleventh Circuit calls "more than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance." Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005). The record must be built at the hearing level.

The order did not decide whether K.K. is disabled, only whether the evidence supported the agency's decision. This article reflects the docket as of September 14, 2026; outcomes depend on the individual record.

If you are dealing with a denied disability claim in Florida, you can request a free case evaluation.